Connecticut ruled today in a 4-3 decision that Connecticut state constitution can not ban same sex couples from marriage.

On the ruling, Justice Richard N. Palmer stated that:

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

That's a great point which refutes the argument by social conservatives that same-sex couples are asking for special, exceptional rights.

The ruling also went on to further demonstrate that civil unions are not legally the same as marriage. That's perhaps the biggest consequence of this decision.

On the decision:

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Slowly, but surely, Americans are coming to realize that banning same-sex marriage is not only un-Constitutional, but pure discrimination. Banning same-sex marriage abrogates our shared American sense of fairness for all our citizens.

Stay tuned for the social-conservatives who will undoubtedly surface denouncing this court ruling with their usual quasi-religious or religious bigotry to discriminate against gay couples, wrapped up in the right-wing venom of traditionalism.

Wisconsin, you should be ashamed of yourself.

(Source)

One accusation made against liberals (and by extension democrats) is that liberals are more emotional and therefore the decisions they make are irrational. Unlike conservatives (and by extension republicans) who are not as emotional and therefore make better decisions because they are more rational. If we follow the reasoning, the conclusion is therefore conservatives are reliable, and liberals are not.

However, the accusation is categorically false.

Both partisans are equally motivated by emotion, rather than reason according to a 2006 study. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to monitor the sectors of the brain of faithful partisans during political judgments. Researcher Drew Westin notes that "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Some of the conclusions of the study were that both Democrats and Republicans:

• alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way
• none of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged
• there is a reward factor within the brain to eliminate negative feelings
  

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data" Westen said. (Source 1)

Commenting on the study, Dr. Michal Shermer states that this "surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence." Confirmation bias is a fallacy in reasoning whereby we count the "hits" and dismiss the "misses" which could refute our ideologically committed preconceptions. (Source 2)

This should help us understand the last observation of the study. When we find evidence, or data, which correspondences to a particular belief, we are more likely to agree with it because our brain's chemistry is hardwired to reward us with positive stimuli.  (We feel good.) If we find evidence to the contrary, no positive stimulus is issued. (We do not feel as good) (Or we feel bad.) This is why it is essential that we guard ourselves against confirmation bias in our reasoning.

But that's difficult. A necessary presupposition of life is to believe and then to assign a value to those beliefs. Philosopher John Dill observes that "...assigning value to our choices and actions, as well as the potential benefits or harm brought about by those choices and actions, necessitates the prioritization of humanities endeavors on the basis of preservation and quality of life." Dill calls these types of beliefs, Category 1 Presuppositions. It is in the sphere we find politics very much an inhabitant of.

Also, there is an evolutionary factor at work here. Failure to recognize a predator got you killed. Recognizing a predator kept you alive. False positives do not get you killed. (The shadow of the tree looks like a lion.) We are the descendants of people who were effective at drawing conclusions from patterns. Sometimes we draw false conclusions from recognizing the wrong pattern.

So it seems that we must fight against our biology where the reliability of our respective beliefs are concerned.

As I've stated many times on this board - beliefs do have real world consequences.

Over the weekend, Jim David Adkisson, attacked a Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist church killing two members and injuring seven others. He attacked the church because "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office." Furthermore, the Knoxville Police Department chief stated that "specifically targeted the church for its beliefs." Even Fox News confirms Adkisson's hatred for liberalism.

Unitarian Universalist are by and large socially liberal and religious humanists. This particular church, since the 50's, has advocated for the homeless, desegregation, equal rights, and a whole host of other liberal causes. It currently advocates for gay rights, which is another reason that Adkisson targeted this church. Because of this, Officer Steve Still observes

"...because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

While Adkission acted alone, his beliefs did not develop in a vacuum. At lcl.com, we have many in the right-wing who echo many of the same sentiments: that liberals and democrats hate America; liberalism is destroying America like terrorism is destroying America; the media is liberal; liberals and democrats are ruining the country; liberals are not patriotic; liberals want the terrorist to win; liberals want America to lose. (I can quote by memory a lengthly list of such quotes if pressed.) These blogger's beliefs did not come from the vacuum either for they can be found in the all pervasive national right-wing opinion media. At Adkisson's residence, books by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity were found, as well as a four page letter outlining Adkisson's beliefs against liberals. (Source.)

Just as beliefs have consequences so too does language.

Right-winger Tom Adkins states

Finally, after years of suspicion and accusations, we not only found the smoking gun, we found the bullets, the target, the secret plans, and the conspirators plotting to politically assassinate a President who is guilty of protecting out nation from terrorists. Unmasked and caught red-handed, the modern Democrat is a traitor. They should be treated no differently than the Rosenbergs; tried in a court of law, convicted, and suffer the harshest punishment. Death by firing squad, preferably. On TV, if possible.

The language of the right-wing imbues America with certain powers that it finds sacrosanct. This in turn, becomes the proxy for what America is - which is, right-wing conservative beliefs. Anything that stands in opposition to this synthesized political ideology becomes anti-American. A historical comparison can be drawn from Host Descreation which gave the justification for massacres of Jewish citizenry for centuries in an array of different countries. When one demonizes their perceived enemy, they position their opponent as evil and subhuman and we should not be surprised at the results.

Obviously, Adkisson is mentally ill, suicidal, and as Fox News reports what set him off was losing his job and not securing a new one, for which he blamed liberals for anyway. (He had stopped receiving food-stamps, and may have directed some of his anger at his ex-wife who attended church there.) Acting on his delusion was to attack liberals in a last blaze of glory that would somehow even things up. You know, take as many of "them" with you as you can.

For the record, I do not feel that the right-wing is standing back and cheering this man's actions on. Adkisson's actions are his own, of course. (And I expect that many righties here at lcl will chime in and try to distance themselves. I hope they do.) Despite the hatred and disgust of liberals that many in the right-wing share with Adkisson, this does not mean that right-wing agrees with the actions of this one man. My argument is against the language of the right-wing for which Adkisson's beliefs are grounded in. This event is an unintentional consequence of the hateful language smearing liberals as anti-American from many members of the right-wing.

In my opinion, this is not a case of liberal terrorism, or terrorism against liberals, but something akin to political assassination and a consequence of the culture war against liberals and liberalism.

It seems fitting to draw this comparison from fantasy and science fiction:

"..if we fight the Daleks, we will be defeated. Worked to death. Exterminated. But if we do as they wish, and if we work for them efficiently and swear not to turn against them, then we will survive. And if we survive, then we will have hope." The Angel of Mercy (Dalek Empire IV, The Fearless, Part 1. Big Finnish Audio.)

The Daleks, are humanoid mutants encased in battle-armored machines intent on galaxy-wide domination. They are "a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse." The Daleks have committed more genocide than in Hitler's most erotic, wet dreams. They make Mao, Stalin, Hannibal, look like amateurs. Osama...the man is a n00b. The Angel of Mercy, an appellation bestowed upon by the Daleks, is a human prisoner who helps the Daleks maintain control of human slaves by influencing their will. She is also psychic, so she is especially adept in doing so.

What does this analogy have to do with treason by liberals? In the blog post, Who Said it – Liberal or Terrorist?, Amy L Gieger Hemmer states "there seem to be many extreme liberals who hate the country they live in and especially the President" and continues that "if the rhetoric borders on treason and people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, charge them as such." Therefore, the Daleks are terrorists, and the Angel of Mercy, is an extreme liberal. Her support of the Daleks is treason.

For the sake of argument, let's indulge in the fantasy that there are extreme liberals who hate America. Furthermore, let us also conclude that in comparison to terrorist rhetoric, the extreme liberal is no different. As Amy states "hateful rhetoric demonizing one's own country does serve to help and support the enemy." Therefore, we can conclude that liberals are giving Aid And Comfort.

We now have an explicit case of treason by liberals against the United States of America.

Treason is defined under Article 3, S.3, as

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Also, are we not at war with Iraq? No. Legally, we are not at war. Fact is, Congress only declared military action, not war. (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)  Furthermore, Bush declared victory stating that "major combat operations against Iraq" were completed. If it ever was a war, that war has been since completed.

Regardless, have we not declared a war against terrorism? No. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists authorized military force against the Taliban and terrorism, and not against the Afghan state. This resolution is based upon the War Power's Act, which states that the President may commit troops without a formal Declaration of War. A Declaration of War states that "a state of war between two or more nations." Terrorism at large functions largely independent of a state. For both resolutions, the President must go to congress and have both authorizations re-certified every sixty days.

America is not at war, even though in parlance we refer to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as such.

Also, there are currently are no cases of treason against liberals. The best that legally could be charged against a liberal would be espionage and there are no cases currently of espionage against liberals before the Court.

Which is a bit odd, considering that for a solid, six years (2000-2006) the Congress, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court have been dominated by conservatives with liberals all to willing to capitulate to the demands of these conservatives in matters foreign and domestic. (Adding to that, the Senate is barely liberal, with Lieberman an Independent Hawk who caucus with the conservatives.) Depending on your point of view, we've seen a relaxing or strengthening of FISA, and increased cooperation between the CIA and FBI to spy on American citizens with relaxed wire taping laws allowing phone companies to snoop on citizens on the behest of the CIA. Interrogation methods have been "enhanced" to include water-boarding and other techniques that were once considered torture by the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

Not one peep from a terrorist implicating a liberal or an extreme liberal. And not one legal action against either. 

If we assume that the total population of liberals based upon the last general election of '04, we find there are almost as many liberals as conservatives. And if we look at Bush approval ratings which hovers around 30%, or Cheney's around 18%, we should find a significant majority of liberals who are extreme. Even with the expanded powers of the state an all branches aligned against terrorism, we should have at least turned up one case of a treasonous liberal. (Well, here was that Plame case. However, no liberals we're implicated, just conservatives. And there was the right-winger and Christian-Conservative, Tim McVeigh, inspired by the fantasy of the Turner Diaries who blew up the Mora Federal building. But never mind all that. Nothing to see here. There is a witch-hunt against liberals to conduct.)  We have not. So unfortunately for Amy, her accusation is a non sequitar.

Fact is, there are currently no cases of treason against liberals. Even the extreme ones, who according to Amy, are not that hard to find in public statements. So it seems fitting to draw an analogy from the world of fantasy. Amy states that all it takes are facts to refute a liberal. Well, I've outlined the facts above. If facts are good enough to refute a liberal, they are good enough to refute a conservative in today's variety of a Bush-Nationalist.

That is, unless, they are delusional.

(In Part 2, I will analyze rhetoric by Amy and other Bush Nationalist and its consequences to freedom of speech, freedom of consciousness, and the historical precedent that this authorarianism against thought that they endorse. Stay Tuned. )